It violates the law of conservation of energy, for which there is a ton of evidence.

No laws are broken, the misunderstanding is very simple here… it is recovered energy, not a new source of energy.

The thread title might confuse some people a bit to think that generation means a new source of energy, but all generators use another fuel source like gasoline, coal, wind, water flow, etc. Normally the waves in the pavement (I’ve really seen the waves in the hot summer time, they are there) are discarded wasted energy, and the idea is to recover them. That’s all the idea is here, it’s not a new energy source, its an efficiency improvement. I don’t know if it’ll be cost-effective and efficient enough, but it has potential.

Signature

bicycles: less mass, no fuel, lower speed, more beautiful, more quiet, lower cost, less wear-and-tear on the roads, more social because you can talk to people beside you, low-impact heart healthy exercise, easy parking… they are not perfect, but are they better than cars?.

It violates the law of conservation of energy, for which there is a ton of evidence.

No laws are broken, the misunderstanding is very simple here… it is recovered energy, not a new source of energy.

The thread title might confuse some people a bit to think that generation means a new source of energy, but all generators use another fuel source like gasoline, coal, wind, water flow, etc. Normally the waves in the pavement (I’ve really seen the waves in the hot summer time, they are there) are discarded wasted energy, and the idea is to recover them. That’s all the idea is here, it’s not a new energy source, its an efficiency improvement. I don’t know if it’ll be cost-effective and efficient enough, but it has potential.

True, and perhaps the most familiar misunderstanding is that many people believe electricity is a source of energy.

Jump, it is not “recovered energy”, although I admit that the distinction here is too subtle for somebody not trained in the sciences to understand. Remember, compression of the pavement is NOT the source of the energy—the piezo device only generates electricity from energy that compresses the piezo device. In other words, if the pavement were made of rubber, then there’d be energy consumed in the compression and release of the rubber, causing the rubber to heat up, but that heat energy is not harvested by the piezo device. Think of it this way: the piezo device can only respond to what hits it. It is the compression and release of the piezo device itself that generates the electricity. But compressing and releasing the piezo device requires energy. Where does that energy come from? The car overhead. If the piezo device were not there, then the roadway would not be as “spongy”, and would be stiffer, providing less resistance to the car. Do you recall that inflating your tires so that they’re hard, not spongy, is one of the simplest things you can do to increase your mileage? A hard, solid contact between tire and road makes for less energy loss. The spongier the tire—AND the road—the more resistance and the more energy is lost. The piezo device is compressible—it WORKS by being compressed—and so it adds to the sponginess of the road, reducing the energy efficiency of the car.

Jump, it is not “recovered energy”, although I admit that the distinction here is too subtle for somebody not trained in the sciences to understand. Remember, compression of the pavement is NOT the source of the energy—the piezo device only generates electricity from energy that compresses the piezo device. In other words, if the pavement were made of rubber, then there’d be energy consumed in the compression and release of the rubber, causing the rubber to heat up, but that heat energy is not harvested by the piezo device. Think of it this way: the piezo device can only respond to what hits it. It is the compression and release of the piezo device itself that generates the electricity. But compressing and releasing the piezo device requires energy. Where does that energy come from? The car overhead. If the piezo device were not there, then the roadway would not be as “spongy”, and would be stiffer, providing less resistance to the car. Do you recall that inflating your tires so that they’re hard, not spongy, is one of the simplest things you can do to increase your mileage? A hard, solid contact between tire and road makes for less energy loss. The spongier the tire—AND the road—the more resistance and the more energy is lost. The piezo device is compressible—it WORKS by being compressed—and so it adds to the sponginess of the road, reducing the energy efficiency of the car.

Cool, so place them at places where people need to slow down. They would utilize the energy that is now used (wasted) to stop massive objects.

Cool, so place them at places where people need to slow down. They would utilize the energy that is now used (wasted) to stop massive objects.

That’s true, but the next question is, are they really cost-effective? The energy efficiency of piezoelectric devices is about 30%, which is fairly good as these things go, but still, at very best you’re getting back only 30% of the energy from the cars. A much better way to slow down cars at intersections would be to pave the intersections with rubber.

Cool, so place them at places where people need to slow down. They would utilize the energy that is now used (wasted) to stop massive objects.

That’s true, but the next question is, are they really cost-effective? The energy efficiency of piezoelectric devices is about 30%, which is fairly good as these things go, but still, at very best you’re getting back only 30% of the energy from the cars. A much better way to slow down cars at intersections would be to pave the intersections with rubber.

Jump, it is not “recovered energy”, although I admit that the distinction here is too subtle for somebody not trained in the sciences to understand.

The distinction is bold, I’ve seen waves in the hot summer pavemnt… crest as high as 8 to 10 inches tall. Anyone can understand: 1) the car moves, 2) roll over the piezo and it generates some electricity, 3) and the piezo does not stop the car. You’re still thinking deep down in the pavement dimple, raise up your thinking and come back up to the drivers seat, you’re over-analyzing.

Chris Crawford - 28 July 2011 09:34 AM

Remember, compression of the pavement is NOT the source of the energy—the piezo device only generates electricity from energy that compresses the piezo device….

Sure sure.

Chris Crawford - 28 July 2011 09:34 AM

But compressing and releasing the piezo device requires energy. Where does that energy come from? The car overhead. If the piezo device were not there, then the roadway would not be as “spongy”, and would be stiffer, providing less resistance to the car.

If you assume that the roadway is stiffer than the piezo device, that would be more efficient, sure.

Chris Crawford - 28 July 2011 09:34 AM

Do you recall that inflating your tires so that they’re hard, not spongy, is one of the simplest things you can do to increase your mileage? A hard, solid contact between tire and road makes for less energy loss. The spongier the tire—AND the road—the more resistance and the more energy is lost.

Yes I recall, thank you.

Chris Crawford - 28 July 2011 09:34 AM

The piezo device is compressible—it WORKS by being compressed—and so it adds to the sponginess of the road, reducing the energy efficiency of the car.

You assume that the piezo device is more spongy than the road, with that in mind its less efficient sure. But that assumtion is just a guess.

Chris, you’re worried about drag, but we all know that the car still rolls, very fast, and so we know it overcomes all the drag forces. When rolling on ice, snow, clean pavement, gravel, dirt road… still the car rolls on, even if we put a piezo in its path. The force that moves the car is much much greater than all those little obsticles/inefficiencies, the cars commonly travel at 55 or more m.p.h., and so at this early stage we don’t need to be concerned with those small drag factors.

Stiffer piezo devices might be true. The pavement might also be softened by the piezo device, and that would be less efficient, the Israeli web site says they can control that. Either way, the car still rolls because there is plenty of energy to overcome the drag forces, the piezo devices isn’t as soft as mud and so won’t stop the car. Chris, you’re still looking for an increase in the overall energy of the system, but I am not, and neither are the Israelis. I’m looking for an efficiency increase, where some wasted energy hopefully gets utilized.

Energy speeding the car = energy from the engine - wasted drag forces

I’m trying to utilize the waste forces after they leave the system, by adding new components (a new equation) that are outside of the old system (under the car in the pavement). Chris, you’re trying disprove the technology by proving that it adds no energy to the system, and I agree that it adds no energy, but that’s beside the point because we’re trying to recover old energy.

Energy speeding the car = energy from the engine - wasted drag forces

Recovered waste = recovered pavement forces

Signature

bicycles: less mass, no fuel, lower speed, more beautiful, more quiet, lower cost, less wear-and-tear on the roads, more social because you can talk to people beside you, low-impact heart healthy exercise, easy parking… they are not perfect, but are they better than cars?.

Jump, I’m going to make a few final points and then walk away from this discussion.

I’ve seen waves in the hot summer pavemnt… crest as high as 8 to 10 inches tall.

What you’re seeing is heated air, which has a different index of refraction than cool air. The pavement gets hot in the sun, heats the air next to it, and that air rises. The process is not smooth; there’s plenty of turbulence, and different parcels of air have different indeces of refraction, which is what you see moving.

You’re trying to understand something without an understanding of basic physics. I’ve tried to explain the basic physics from a number of directions, but none of my explanations have worked. At this point, I suggest that you study basic physics if you want to understand this issue.

If you really believe that this thing works, why not invest in it? Better yet, set up your own company to implement it in your own country. I can assure you that the Israeli inventor’s invention is not patented—no patent office in the world would approve an obviously impossible scheme. Failing in that, would you care to fund my perpetual-motion machine project?

What about a roadway with build in small weigh-scales type compression sections, the more traffic the heavier the kinetic load on the platforms. This kinetic pressure (load) can be converted into energy.
As far as resistance, there would only be a downward movement of perhaps 1/8”, well in the range of tire shock absorption.

What about building heavy magnets in cars and as they travel the moving magnetic fields generate energy below the pavement surface.
Wow, that concept could be used for pumping liquids through underground pipes. A reverse application of the collider function, where the magnets are all moving in the same direction at a relative same speed.